ORAU TEAM

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

Oak Ridge Associated Universities I Dade Moeller & Associates I MJW Corporation

Page 1 of 13

Document Title:

Idaho National Laboratory – 

Occupational Medical Dose

Document Number: ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 

Revision: 01

Effective Date: 01/31/2007

Type of Document: TBD

Supersedes: Revision 00

Subject Expert: Norman D. Rohrig

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 12/12/2006

Daniel Mantooth, Document Owner

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 12/13/2006

John M. Byrne, Task 3 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 12/13/2006

Edward F. Maher, Task 5 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 01/24/2007

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Approval: Brant A. Ulsh Signature on File for Approval Date: 01/31/2007

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

 New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change

FOR DOCUMENTS MARKED AS A TOTAL REWRITE, REVISION, OR PAGE CHANGE, REPLACE THE PRIOR 

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 2 of 13

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

01/15/2004 00 New Technical Basis Document for the Idaho National Engineering 

and Environmental Laboratory - Occupational Medical Dose. First 

approved issue. Initiated by Norman D. Rohrig.

05/28/2004 00 PC-1 Adds spleen to organ table on page 10. Eliminates date overlap in 

table on page 11. Initiated by Norman Rohrig.

Approval:

Norman D. Rohrig, Document Owner

Signature on File_____________ _________________05/27/2004

Task 3 Manager, Judson Kenoyer, Task 3, Manager

Signature on File_____________ _________________05/27/2004 

Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Signature on File_____________ _________________ 05/27/2004

James W. Neton, OCAS Health Science Administrator

Signature on File_____________ _________________05/28/2004

01/31/2007 01 Approved Revision 01 as a result of biennial review. Revised 

language in the Purpose section as required by NIOSH. Attributions 

and Annotations section added. Changed treatment of eye and brain 

dose. As a result of internal formal review, add Table 3-3. 

Incorporates NIOSH formal review comments. This revision results 

in an increase in assigned dose and a PER is required. Constitutes 

a total rewrite of document. Initiated by Norman D. Rohrig.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 3 of 13

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................

PAGE

4

3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................5

3.1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................6

3.1.2 Scope...........................................................................................................................6

3.2 Examination Frequencies.........................................................................................................6

3.3 Equipment and Techniques......................................................................................................7

3.4 Organ Doses............................................................................................................................8

3.5 Uncertainty.............................................................................................................................10

3.6 Attributions and Annotations ..................................................................................................10

References ........................................................................................................................................12

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................13

 

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE

3-1 Chest X-ray schedule from 1960 annual report ........................................................................

PAGE

6

3-2 Skin entrance air kerma values ................................................................................................8

3-3 Dose Conversion Factors for ICRP 34 Organs......................................................................... 8

3-4 IREP organs not included in ICRP 34 (1982) ........................................................................... 9

3-5 Organ doses from occupational medical exposures at INL....................................................... 9
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 4 of 13

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AP anterior-posterior

cm centimeter

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

HVL half-value layer

Hz hertz

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

INL Idaho National Laboratory

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program

kg kilogram 

kVp peak kilovolts or applied kilovoltage

LAT lateral

lb pound

mA milliampere

mAs milliampere-seconds

mm millimeter

mrad millirad

ms millisecond

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

PA posterior-anterior 

POC probability of causation

s second

SRS Savannah River Site

U.S.C. United States Code

yr year

§ section or sections
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 5 of 13

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Technical basis documents and site profile documents are not official determinations made by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but are rather general working 

documents that provide historic background information and guidance to assist in the preparation of 

dose reconstructions for particular sites or categories of sites. They will be revised in the event 

additional relevant information is obtained about the affected site(s). These documents may be used 

to assist NIOSH staff in the completion of the individual work required for each dose reconstruction.

In this document, the word “facility” is used as a general term for an area, building, or group of 

buildings that served a specific purpose at a site. It does not necessarily connote an “atomic weapons 

employer facility” or a “Department of Energy [DOE] facility” as defined in the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act [EEOICPA; 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(5) and (12)]. 

EEOICPA defines a DOE facility as “any building, structure, or premise, including the grounds upon 

which such building, structure, or premise is located ... in which operations are, or have been, 

conducted by, or on behalf of, the Department of Energy (except for buildings, structures, premises, 

grounds, or operations ... pertaining to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program)” [42 U.S.C. § 

7384l(12)]. Accordingly, except for the exclusion for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program noted 

above, any facility that performs or performed DOE operations of any nature whatsoever is a DOE 

facility encompassed by EEOICPA.

For employees of DOE or its contractors with cancer, the DOE facility definition only determines 

eligibility for a dose reconstruction, which is a prerequisite to a compensation decision (except for 

members of the Special Exposure Cohort). The compensation decision for cancer claimants is based 

on a section of the statute entitled “Exposure in the Performance of Duty.” That provision [42 U.S.C. § 

7384n(b)] says that an individual with cancer “shall be determined to have sustained that cancer in the 

performance of duty for purposes of the compensation program if, and only if, the cancer ... was at 

least as likely as not related to employment at the facility [where the employee worked], as 

determined in accordance with the POC [probability of causation1

As noted above, the statute includes a definition of a DOE facility that excludes “buildings, structures, 

premises, grounds, or operations covered by Executive Order No. 12344, dated February 1, 1982 (42 

U.S.C. 7158 note), pertaining to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program” [42 U.S.C. § 7384l(12)]. 

While this definition contains an exclusion with respect to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, the 

section of EEOICPA that deals with the compensation decision for covered employees with cancer 

[i.e., 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b), entitled “Exposure in the Performance of Duty”] does not contain such an 

exclusion. Therefore, the statute requires NIOSH to include all occupationally derived radiation 

exposures at covered facilities in its dose reconstructions for employees at DOE facilities, including 

radiation exposures related to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. As a result, all internal and 

external dosimetry monitoring results are considered valid for use in dose reconstruction. No efforts 

are made to determine the eligibility of any fraction of total measured exposure for inclusion in dose 

reconstruction. NIOSH, however, does not consider the following exposures to be occupationally 

derived:

] guidelines established under 

subsection (c) ... ” [42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b)]. Neither the statute nor the probability of causation

guidelines (nor the dose reconstruction regulation) define “performance of duty” for DOE employees 

with a covered cancer or restrict the “duty” to nuclear weapons work.

• Radiation from naturally occurring radon present in conventional structures

• Radiation from diagnostic X-rays received in the treatment of work-related injuries

 

1 The U.S. Department of Labor is ultimately responsible under the EEOICPA for determining the POC. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 6 of 13

3.1.1

This section discusses the occupational medical dose workers received during employment at the 

Idaho National Laboratory (INL, formerly known as the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and the National Reactor Testing Station). 

INL required preemployment and periodic physical examinations as part of its occupational health and 

safety program. At first, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) provided these medical 

examinations for all contractors and AEC personnel. Later, the service became the responsibility of 

the site prime contractor. 

Purpose

3.1.2

The examinations typically included chest X-rays. The dose from these procedures depended not 

only on the characteristics of the X-ray machine and the procedure used but also on the frequency of 

examinations. This section discusses the various X-ray techniques and equipment used over the 

years at the INL. The primary source of information on medical X-rays is Idaho National Engineering 

and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) History of the Occupational Medical Program (OMP) X-Ray 

Process (Collings and Creighton 2002), a report prepared by Bechtel BWXT Idaho at INL at the 

request of NIOSH. 

Scope

3.2 EXAMINATION FREQUENCIES

Collings and Creighton (2002) reported that from 1954 to 1970, chest X-rays were performed on new 

hires and on radiation workers at ages 25, 30, 34, 37, and 40, every 2 yr from ages 40 to 62, and then 

every year. They also reported that all employees went on this schedule in 1970. Table 3-1 from the 

1960 annual report (AEC 1961) lists a somewhat different schedule:

Table 3-1. Chest X-ray schedule from 1960 annual report (AEC 

1961).

Age

Radiation area employees

Badged

Nonradiation employees

Unbadged

18-24 4 yr At age 30

25-39 3 yr 5 yr

40-49 2 yr 3 yr

50-59 1 yr 2 yr

Over 60 1 yr 1 yr

This schedule is corroborated by a memorandum (Sommers 1961). The dose reconstructor should 

assume that the 1960 schedule applies to dose reconstruction for all workers in the 1954 to 1970 

period because it uses historical documentation. It also involved more examinations and is thus 

favorable to claimants. 

The Appendix to AEC Manual Chapter 0528 (AEC 1969) specified the following:

• A chest X-ray would be part of a medical examination.

• Workers under 40 would receive an examination at a frequency influenced by several factors.

• Workers over 40 would receive an examination at least every 2 yr (approximately annually 

when indicated).

The schedule in the table is consistent with that requirement except for ages 40 to 49. The 1971 

annual report (AEC 1972) states the schedule for examinations was, “at time of hire, at ages 25, 30, 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 7 of 13

34, 37, and 40, every two years until age 62 and then annually.” This is identical to that reported by 

Collings and Creighton (2002), and it is assumed to apply from 1970 to 1976.

Beginning in 1976, physicals occurred every 2 yr for workers under age 45 and every year for those 

over age 45 (Collings and Creighton 2002). On February 1, 1978, routine chest X-rays were 

eliminated on periodic physicals except for high-risk individuals (as determined by the physician), in 

which case they were performed every 4 yr (Collings and Creighton 2002). Records from the 

exposures are reported in each worker’s medical file. 

3.3 EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES

The standard distance from source to image was 72 inches (183 cm) for the posterior-anterior (PA; 

back to front) and lateral (LAT) chest exams.

The records indicate that none of the INL examinations used photofluorography (Creighton 2003; 

Rohrig 2003). The 1971 annual report stated that a medical van took 22% of the 4,426 X-ray 

examinations and mentioned the Idaho Falls Navy dispensary as providing X-ray examinations (AEC 

1972). Both of these facilities performed standard chest X-rays (Rohrig 2003) and did not do 

photofluorography. A key-word search of the INL records system using the words collimation, 

fluoroscopic, Health and Safety, Health and Safety Services, Medical X-ray, photofluorography, and 

X-ray resulted in nothing that indicated the use of fluoroscopic techniques (Vivian and Rockhold 

2003).

From 1954 to February 1990, X-ray examinations were performed with a single-phase General 

Electric Model DXD350 machine. The voltage was 90 kVp, the current was 300 mA, and the duration 

of the exposure was 1/15 s (67 ms). Added filtration of 2 mm Al was used, and a 10:1 grid was used 

to reduce scatter radiation (Collings and Creighton 2002). Tube window thickness is assumed to 

have been beryllium with thickness equivalent to about 0.5 mm aluminum. Based on Table A16 of 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 34, Protection of the Patient 

in Diagnostic Radiology, (ICRP 1982), the half-value layer (HVL) at 90 kVp and 2.5 mm Al total 

filtration is 2.58 mm Al.

From February 1990 to the present, X-rays have been performed with a three-phase Gendex Model 

110-0030G2. The voltage is 100 kVp, the current is 300 mA, and the duration is 32 ms. Added 

filtration of 2 mm Al was used, and a 10:1 grid was used to reduce scatter radiation (Collings and 

Creighton 2002). Tube window thickness is assumed to be about 0.5 mm. Based on Table A17 of 

ICRP 34 (1982), the HVL at 100 kVp and 2.5 mm Al total filtration is 3.3 mm Al.

Practices before 1954 are unclear. Offsite facilities might have been contracted to perform the 

examinations. The default value for entrance kerma of 200 mrad (ORAUT 2005a) is assumed for that 

period. 

From 1954 to 1970, the chest X-ray consisted of a single PA image (Collings and Creighton 2002). 

From 1970 to 1978, the procedure consisted of both PA and LAT projections (Collings and Creighton 

2002). From 1978 to 1990, the LAT projection was dropped and only a PA projection was made

(Collings and Creighton 2002). For the latest period from 1990 to the present, there have been both 

PA and LAT projections (Collings and Creighton 2002). For LAT projections, the exposure time was 

about 1.25 times that of the PA view [1]. In Collings and Creighton (2002), the terms PA and AP 

(anterior-posterior, front to back) appear somewhat interchangeably. Creighton attributed this 

presumed interchangeable usage to a typographical error. The August 21, 1975, U.S. Energy 

Research and Development Administration requirement for occupational medical programs (replaced 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 8 of 13

in 1982) specified the minimum requirements for chest X-rays and specified a PA projection at least 

once every 5 yr as well as when transferring to a job with cardiorespiratory system stress (ERDA 

1975).

Collimation and control of scatter for the INL facilities generally followed the state of the medical art as 

it improved. However, in absence of particular information about collimation, this analysis assumed 

the dose conversion factors from Table 6-5 of ORAUT (2005a) for the pre-1970 period. 

3.4 ORGAN DOSES 

The entrance air kerma for 100 mAs can be determined from Table B3 of National Council on 

Radiation Protection and Measurements Report 102 (NCRP 1989) and the beam voltage, distance, 

and total filtration. Table 3-2 lists the skin entrance air kerma values in millirad.

Table 3-2. Skin entrance air kerma values (mrad). 

Air kerma PA Lat

Pre-1954 200 NA

1954–1990 52 74

1990–present 53 76

Tables A2 to A9 of ICRP 34 (1982) list Monte Carlo calculation results of the ratio of organ doses to 

air kerma, for a 70-kg (154-lb) male or female, for the thyroid, ovaries, testes, lungs, female breast, 

uterus (embryo), active bone marrow, and total body under different exposure conditions. These dose 

conversion factor results are shown in Table 3-3. For the pre-1970 time period when collimation is 

uncertain, the values from Table 6-5 of OTIB-0006 (ORAUT 2005a) are used. Under EEOICPA, 

cancers in several other organs are compensable, as listed in the Interactive RadioEpidemiological 

Program (IREP). The ratio of doses for two organs is affected by the relative atomic numbers of the 

tissue (bone dose is higher than dose in nearby muscle), the relative positions of the organ and the Xray beam, and the depth in the body. Table 3-4 lists these other organs and the organs from ICRP 34

(1982), which were used to estimate the dose. For the eye and brain, dose conversion factors from 

OTIB-0006 (ORAU 2005a) are used. 

Table 3-3. Dose Conversion Factors for ICRP 34 Organs.

ICRP 34 Organs

Dose Conversion Factors for INL (mrad/rad)

Thyroid Testes Lungs Breast Ovary

Uterus 

Embryo

Bone 

Time Period Geometry Marrow Skin

Before 1970a PA 174 125 451 49 125 125 92 1250

1970 to 

1990b

PA 34.2 0.0 464.4 52.2 1.1 1.5 96.0 1360

LAT 117.9 0.1 227.5 260.1 0.6 0.6 38.8 1360

1990 to 

presentb

PA 55.6 0.0 537.4 82.2 2.6 4.0 129.4 1400

LAT 143.8 0.1 260 304.4 1.3 1.6 44 1400

a. Based on OTIB-0006 (ORAUT 2005a) and measurements by Webster therein (result/default kerma). 

b Interpolated to actual HVL.

For organs where there is a difference for males and females, the larger values are used in Tables 3-

3 and 3-5 to be favorable to the claimant. A linear interpolation applicable to the pre-1990 and post1990 years was used between the dose ratios for HVLs of 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 mm Al to the values of 

2.58 and 3.3 mm Al [2]. The skin entrance surface was assumed to be 30 cm from the film for the PA 

view and 40 cm from the film for the LAT view [3]. These distances account for body thickness and 

any other space between the person and the film. The dose to the skin is the product of the entrance 

skin exposure and a backscatter factor taken from Table B-8 of NCRP Report 102 (NCRP 1989).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 9 of 13

Table 3-4. IREP organs not included in ICRP 34 (1982). 

Anatomical Location

ICRP 34 (1982) 

Reference Organ IREP Organ Analogues

Thorax Lung Thymus

Esophagus

Bone surface 

Stomach/Spleen

Liver/Gall Bladder

Abdomen Ovaries Urinary Bladder

Colon

Uterus

The organ dose from a PA image is the product of the two table values, an inverse square correction, 

and the product of exposure current and time. Table 3-5 lists these values and the frequencies. 

When there was also a LAT image, a similar calculation was performed and added to the PA result in 

Table 3-5. Row 2 in Table 3-5 lists the organs identified in ICRP 34 (1982), and row 4 lists the organs 

identified in IREP that are not in ICRP 34 (1982). 

Table 3-5. Organ doses (mrad) from occupational medical exposures at the INL. 

Period

Frequency 

information Geometry

ICRP 34 Organs

Thyroid Testes Lungs Breast Ovary 

Uterus 

Embryo 

Bone 

Marrow

Other Organs

Thymus 

Esophagus 

Stomach 

Bone Surface

Liver/Spleen

Gall Bladder

Bladder 

Colon Skin

Eye 

Brain

Before 

1954 

No information; 

assume annual

PA 35 25 93 10 25 25 19 272 6

1954 to 

1969

New hires PA 9 6.5 24 2.7 6.5 6.5 5 70 1.7

Rad workers

Every 4 yr 18-24

Triennial 25-39

Biennial 40 - 49

Annual over 50

Nonrad workers

Every 5 yr 30-39

Triennial 40-49

Biennial 50-59

Annual over 60

1970 to 

1976

New hires PA, LAT 10 0.008 41 22 0.1 0.1 8 171 12

25, 30, 34, 37, 40

Biennial 40 to 62

Annual >62

1977 to 

1978

New hires PA, LAT

Biennial <45

Annual >45

1979 to 

Jan 1990

New hires

4 yr High risk only

PA 1.8 0.001 24 2.7 0.1 0.1 5.0 70 1.7

Feb 1990 

to 2006 

PA, LAT 14 0.008 53 27 0.2 0.3 11 180 12
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 10 of 13

3.5 UNCERTAINTY

Uncertainties in the occupational medical dose result from uncertainties in the current, voltage, and 

time for the exposures. The organ doses are also influenced by the size of the person [4]. For IREP 

organs where an analogue organ is used from the ICRP 34 (1982) organs, the IREP organs are 

generally deeper in the body so the dose will be lower than the analogue organ. No estimate is made 

of this one-sided uncertainty because it cannot lead to a larger dose [5]. 

The uncertainties assigned in the site profile for the Savannah River Site (SRS) (ORAUT 2005b) are 

generically valid for X-ray programs. The uncertainty at 1 sigma due to voltage was 9%, that due to 

current was 5%, and that due to time was 25%. The uncertainty for voltage assumed a 5% voltage 

uncertainty; because the output has a V1.7 dependence, the resultant uncertainty is 9%. Output is 

directly proportional to current, which was assumed to have a 5% uncertainty [6]. The usually 

unfiltered voltage output from the voltage rectifier causes a pulsed character to the X-ray output at 

120 Hz (twice the supply frequency). For short exposure times, this results in only a few pulses and 

thus a fairly large uncertainty due to time [7]. 

All Monte Carlo calculations have an uncertainty determined by the length of the run and the number 

of events scored for each calculation. For the organ dose calculations from ICRP 34 (1982), this 

uncertainty was not stated. Based on judgment, it is assumed to be 5% at 1 sigma, which would 

require at least 400 counts in each scoring unit [8]. 

The error due to an individual’s thickness has two causes: (1) an increase for a larger person being 

closer to the source and (2) a decrease due to additional attenuation in the body. The Monte Carlo 

calculations in ICRP 34 (1982) assumed 70-kg (154-lb) male and female geometries. The 10% 

uncertainty assigned in the SRS site profile (ORAUT 2005b) was due to the first cause; but, because 

the effects counteract, that value is appropriate for the combined effect. This should be taken as 1 

sigma on a normal distribution. These sources of uncertainty added in quadrature result in a 

combined uncertainty of ±30% at 1 sigma or 84% confidence.

3.6 ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS 

Where appropriate in the preceding text, bracketed callouts have been inserted to indicate 

information, conclusions, and recommendations provided to assist in the process of worker dose 

reconstruction. These callouts are listed here again in the Attributions and Annotations section of the 

document with information provided to identify the source and justification for each associated item. 

Conventional references are provided in the next section of this document, linking data, quotations, 

and other information to documents available for review on the Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

(ORAU) Team servers.

 [1] Rohrig, Norman. ORAU Team. Site Expert. July 8, 2003.

Stated in phone conversation by Dr. Paul Creighton, INL Medical Director.

[2] Rohrig, Norman. ORAU Team. Site Expert.

HVLs determined from ICRP 34 as noted in § 3.3. Linear interpolation used to get 

intermediate values since a relatively small change was involved.

[3] Rohrig, Norman. ORAU Team. Site Expert.

Chest thickness for reference man is 23 cm. These values allow for some leeway which will 

result in a value favorable to the claimant.

[4] Rohrig, Norman. ORAU Team. Site Expert.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 11 of 13

Because radiation is attenuated by the body, the dose conversion factor is reduced for a larger 

person. Operators may increase the voltage slightly to compensate, which could increase the 

dose to an organ.

[5] Rohrig, Norman. ORAU Team. Site Expert.

If an organ is deeper in the body than a reference organ, there will be more attenuation to 

reach that organ.

[6] Rohrig, Norman. ORAU Team. Site Expert.

This is the same value as used for the Savannah River Site and assumed in OTIB-0006 

(ORAU 2005a). 

[7] Rohrig, Norman. ORAU Team. Site Expert.

For the early machine, the exposure time was 1/15 sec or 8 pulses at 120 Hz from a full wave 

rectifier power supply. A likely uncertainty is 1 pulse or 12.5%, which is less than the assigned 

uncertainty of 25%.

[8] Rohrig, Norman. ORAU Team. Site Expert.

ICRP did not state an uncertainty, but scientific expertise implies there is one. A 5% value 

would be consistent with stating the results to 2 significant digits. Getting a significantly 

smaller uncertainty would increase the effort significantly. This uncertainty does not drive the 

total uncertainty. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 12 of 13

REFERENCES

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1961, Annual Report of the Health and Safety Division 1960, 

IDO-12019, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho, September. [SRDB Ref ID: 1230]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1969, "Chapter 0528, Occupational Health Program," AEC 

Manual, Washington, D.C., December 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 4644]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1972, 1971 Annual Report of the Health Services Laboratory, 

IDO-12076, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho. [SRDB Ref ID: 1431]

Collings, L. H., and P. Creighton, 2002, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

(INEEL) History of the Occupational Medical Program (OMP) X-Ray Process, Bechtel BWXT 

Idaho, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, April 8. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 1774, p. 9]

Creighton, P. N., 2003, “Transmittal of Medical X-ray Information for the INEEL,” letter to L. Johnson 

(National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 4646]

ERDA (U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration), 1975, "Chapter 0528, ERDA 

Contractor Occupational Medical Program Handbook," ERDA Manual, Washington, D.C., 

August 21. [SRDB Ref ID: 4643]

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1982, Protection of the Patient in 

Diagnostic Radiology, Publication 34, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1989, Medical X-Ray, Electron 

Beam and Gamma-Ray Protection for Energies up to 50 MeV (Equipment Design, 

Performance and Use), Report 102, Bethesda, Maryland.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005a, Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally 

Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures, ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Rev. 03 PC-1, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, December 21.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005b, Savannah River Site, ORAUT-TKBS0003, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, April 5.

Rohrig, N., 2003, notes on telephone conversation with J. Spickard of INEEL, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 13439]

Sommers, J. F., 1961, “Routine Blood Sampling Program at the MTR-ETR,” memorandum to All 

MTR/ETR Personnel, Som-165-61A-M, Phillips 66, National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho 

Falls, Idaho, December 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 4817]

Vivian, K. A., and Rockhold, L. E., 2003, "Transmittal of Medical Documents from the INEEL," letter to 

N. Rohrig (Intrepid Technology and Resources), CCN 46313, Bechtel BWXT Idaho, Idaho 

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, November 18. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 7975]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0007-3 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 01/31/2007 Page 13 of 13

GLOSSARY

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 

Federal agency created in 1946 to assume the responsibilities of the Manhattan Engineer 

District (nuclear weapons) and to manage the development, use, and control of nuclear energy 

for military and civilian applications. The U.S. Energy Research and Development 

Administration and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission assumed separate duties from 

the AEC in 1974. The U.S. Department of Energy succeeded the U.S. Energy Research and 

Development Administration in 1979.

anterior-posterior (AP) 

In relation to radiology, orientation in which the X-rays pass from the front to the back of the 

body to the film. 

kerma 

Measure in units of absorbed dose (usually grays but sometimes rads) of the energy released 

by radiation from a substance. Kerma is the sum of the initial kinetic energies of all the 

charged ionizing particles liberated by uncharged particles per unit mass of a specified 

material. Free-in-air kerma refers to the amount of radiation at a location before adjustment 

for any external shielding from structures or terrain or backscatter from the body. The word 

derives from kinetic energy released per unit mass. 

lateral (LAT) 

In relation to radiology, orientation in which the X-rays pass from one side of the body to the 

other.

posterior-anterior (PA) 

In relation to radiology, orientation in which the X-rays pass from the back to the front of the 

body to the film. 

rad 

Traditional unit for expressing absorbed radiation dose, which is the amount of energy from 

any type of ionizing radiation deposited in any medium. A dose of 1 rad is equivalent to the 

absorption of 100 ergs per gram (0.01 joules per kilogram). The word derives from radiation 

absorbed dose. In the International System of Units (SI), the rad has been replaced by the 

gray (100 rads = 1 gray). 

radiograph 

Photographic image produced on film by gamma rays or X-rays. Some of the rays (photons) 

can pass through parts of an item, while more opaque parts partially or completely absorb 

them and thus cast a shadow on the film. See radiology. 

X-ray 

(1) See X-ray radiation. (2) See radiograph. 

X-ray radiation 

Penetrating electromagnetic radiation (photons) of short wavelength (0.0005 to 10 

nanometers) and energy less than 250 kiloelectron-volts. X-rays usually come from excitation 

of the electron field around certain nuclei. Once formed, there is no difference between X-rays 

and gamma rays, but gamma photons originate inside the nucleus of an atom.